Posted
by
Zonkon Saturday March 03, 2007 @03:32PM
from the always-been-at-war-with-eurasia dept.

pr0nqu33n writes "C|Net is running an article on the DHS's requirements for the Real ID system. Thursday members of the Bush administration finally unveiled details of the anticipated national identification program. Millions of Americans will have until 2013 to register for the system, which will (some would argue) constitute a national ID. RFID trackers for the cards are under consideration, as is a cohesive nation-wide design for the card. States must submit a proposal for how they'll adopt the system by early October of this year. If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes. The full regulations for the system are available online in PDF format. Likewise, the DHS has a Questions and Answers style FAQ available to explain the program to the curious."

The government 'knowing' that you exist ( i.e. driver's license, birth certificate) does not enslave you. Having to present identification to travel or go to the store puts serious restrictions on your freedom.

The US constitution does not specifically mention Freedom of Movement [wikipedia.org] (though the Supreme Court has ruled that it necessarily exists), it is in the UN declaration of human rights and the constitutions of other Western nations. Wikipedia says this:

Because there is no system in place that can track everyone; it would take millions of cameras on the road to even come close, and they'd still only be close, because you can always walk. Once RealID is fully implemented, every time you pass an RFID station, which means, every time you buy something or interact with a bank or use public transit or anywhere else they're interested in what you do, they'll get an automatic - no work required - database update that tells

However if the effort and expenditure required for the government to give a shit about me declines to near zero, then why not?

As other posters have pointed out, the government is welcome to change the law at any time, maybe wearing a yellow shirt will be made illegal (to stop gang violence, of course), and the first thing they'll do is round up everyone who had ever been observed wearing a yellow shirt.

You're quite wrong; there is no technical problem with managing this information, or with keeping it updated. Just a matter of enough hardware, and we're not talking unreasonable amounts; there are only 300 million citizens plus visitors, call it half a gig of data-points. For location, all they need is latitude and longitude, and that can be abstracted against a map when they decide to. So two 32-bit numbers (8 bytes), and they know where you to a

I'm sorry to have to say this, but you are unable to understand the problem; that makes continued conversation meaningless. I wish you were right, and only criminals had to worry. But you're not right. You're just blind.

Hmm. I think I am going to jump in here. My apologies up front for spelling, grammar and other syntactic issues, I am tired, it is late. If I get a chance, this might be a good topic to do a serious essay, but for now, a loosely grouped rambling of thoughts. But, don't hold you breath. 8-)

Anyone with some serious data mining background knows what you can do with large volumes of data. There are already corporate databases that dwarf what was just being discussed (I have worked on a few). Some of the

That's interesting because I live in a country where ID is mandatory and yet I rarely have to show it

You're in danger of losing your geek card here. RFID means you don't have to show the card; it means that it can be read if you're within a few meters without you having to take it out of your wallet. Very... convenient. Old tech ID in another country has no relevance to the RealID program getting under way here; RealID mandates biometric identification details (retina scan, something along those lines) as well as photo and statistical data (height, age, etc.), and most importantly "undisclosed additional technologies." With RFID, if I am standing at a checkout or a toll booth, and you approach, everything on your RealID card will pop up on my display I need to verify you, including the biometric data, arrest history, and anything else they deem interesting (perhaps the prescriptions you take, or your tendency to stutter. Your location and activity can then (still automatically) be passed along to a larger network for use in tracking, privacy invasion, feedforward to entities like insurance providers, banks, various police agencies, and so forth. No one need lift a finger. You just buy your booze or copy of playboy (you filthy bastard!) and go on your way. Later, when they make a law against playboy, they'll just come and get your ass. They already have numerous "punish previous legal behavior with new law" programs running, as well as numerous "add to your sentence after conviction" programs, both the very definition of ex post facto law, which are forbidden by the constitution. Of course, they're not paying any attention to the constitution any longer; another reason to compound our worries.

In the US - traditionally - we have held that our privacy is something we hold dear. This program can erode privacy significantly; that's the general basis for resisting it. But there are others. I don't want my insurance agency to be deciding to change my insurance rates if they find that I am out in the woods from time to time (I collect rocks.) They may decide I am in the same group with hunters or dirt bikers and so pose a higher risk, when in fact, I don't. This is the kind of thing where information about you can be used against you; and like "no-fly" lists, once someone has made a decision that you are an undesirable, they are not generally going to turn around and reverse that decision without a lot of work on your part; work that would be unnecessary if they had simply kept their nose out of your business.

You know what bothers me the most? Not that you asked the question, but that you asked it as if you really thought it was a reasonable one. I am not often actually stunned by ignorance, but in this case, I admit it. I am floored.

All those things were possible in my lifetime. All of them. I've been into Canada without ID; for Expo 67 (the world's fair), specifically, so that was 1967. I've been into and back out of Mexico without ID. I've been in and out of the Bahamas without ID. I've been on many aircr

when and where did you ever have the right to cross an international border, board a plane, enter a school or a courthouse without producing ID at some point along the way?

Hate to turn this into a Constitutional law debate, but I think that's where the answer to your question lies. See, the premise behind the founding of the US was that we all have rights, and the exercise thereof is limited primarily only by those instances where they infringe upon the rights of others. The federal government's role in this is (supposed to be) limited to the narrow powers specifically enumerated in the constitution.

So basically, we've had those rights all along, and the feds claiming they

Yes. And this is a step beyond those, sometimes several steps beyond. Are you OK with that? Are you OK with the fact that the government decides where and when you can go, if you drive, if someone else drives? It used to be that a transportation ticket for any destination within the USA had the following information: Where you got on (sometimes), and where you're supposed to get off. In the case of the NY subway, an ID-less token got you on, and you got off when and where you pleased. You could ride all day. And I often did. I'm old enough I've had plane and train tickets w/o personal identity information; got on in NYC, getting off in Washington. Nothing else. Could have handed it to my girlfriend, it would have been perfectly valid. Didn't used to be the government's business where you were, who you were, or where you were going except in the case where your skills were a safety issue, or in other words, when you drive. In that case, the state has a compelling interest in your competence, and that is what a driver's license is supposed to attest to, not what your real name is or anything else - just that you can drive; the fact that it identifies you is peripheral to its purpose, not the other way around. These days, that's no longer true, but I submit that it is not a good thing at all.

In short, I agree, you're right in the technical sense, they are asking for more and more papers. I firmly believe that's 100% the wrong way to go, and that whatever good you might get out of it, it'll never make up for the enormous bad that it brings. I am not a criminal; I absolutely resent being treated like one. If someone is determined to be a criminal, hang a fucking GPS/RFID/venomous bracelet 'round their ankle if you must let them wander in public, otherwise incarcerate them or exterminate them, but do not bring the presumption of guilt onto the head of every warm body in the country.

I hate this whole "mommy" government thing, top to bottom. We don't need it, there are better ways to go, and getting it is going to hurt us a lot, count on it.

It is sad when we can anticipate benchmarking the termination of our freedoms with a simple, and very recent, piece of pop culture, isn't it?

I don't raise rabbits, but I do live in Montana. Montana is one of the states that is resisting RealID. I'm rather proud of my fellow Montanans, in this case. I'm sorry they folded on the speed limit issue (very, very sorry - I own some moderately high performance vehicles) and I expect they'll cave when similar pressures are applied; we literally don't have the po

States must submit a proposal for how they'll adopt the system by early October of this year. If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes.

I hope that enough states refuse [wikipedia.org] to participate that it makes the federal legistlature repeal the law. Of course, congress will likely do as they've always done and threaten to pull federal highway funding or education funding until the states in question comply.

Sometimes I think states depend too heavily on the federal government loan shark.

For example, take Colorado. Their land-grant institution, CSU, is supposed to be the premier state-run school. However, only about 8% of the budget is provided for by the state. The rest of it is mostly provided by student loans (in turn, provided by the government) and federal government grants.

So, if Colorado ever wanted to exert a state right over a federal right, Congress can easily cut education funding for the state and watch the state universities collapse.

It's sad that states are so dependent on the teat of Uncle Sam. Of course, if they wanted to provide the services through the state, the resulting state tax increase (followed by no federal tax increase) would insure the whole government got voted out.

I wonder if the founding fathers would be saddened by how state governments basically only have the rights and duties the federal government doesn't care to control. Look how easily ID systems just went from state control to federal control - barely any fighting that Joe Q Public even noticed! What state right is next?

Hmm. Revolution: Maybe states ought to make a law that all fuel/road/highway taxes stay in-state, and cannot be "fed" to the feds; then they can build their own highways. Of course, it wouldn't work here in Montana; too much land, not enough taxpayers. Same thing for edumactionisming; figure out the portion of the federal taxes that go to education, and take them before the fed does, and indemnify the taxpayer - by force against the feds if need be - from paying the fed, then handle your own education cost

At which point the federal government will respond with force and, having a larger army at its disposal, win. The same way it happened the last time [wikipedia.org].

The time when US was a loose federation are long past. With modern communication and transport methods, not to mention information technology, there are no empires so large they couldn't be centrally controlled effectively. Better forget fantasies about matching central government with force and instead trying to affect

No, that is entirely wrong. That wasn't the feds; that was one group of states against another. This would be the states - all of them - against the feds. Recall the citizens to the guard; the feds wouldn't even *have* an army. Trust me, a real revolt would work. The civil war was not a revolt; it was an almost equal polarizing of the states, which is something else entirely.

At which point the federal government will respond with force and, having a larger army at its disposal, win. The same way it happened the last time [wikipedia.org].

Yeah, not likely. There was a specific divide between the north and the south that made for a "perfect storm" of civil war. There is no such clearly delineated divide when it comes to federal overreach. If it ever gets to the point where the feds have to call out the Regular Army to put down a revolt, you can bet that the Regular Army will more likely than not be in against the feds. Thing is, the military is trained to fight foreigners, not shoot fellow civilians. Only the cops are instilled with that par

We don't speak of "states' rights" too much here in the South, anymore. That became a code word for segregationism, so it's too easy to be marginalized as a racist crank or an Uncle Tom if you invoke it.The system of federal bribery and funding extortion is typically (though not exclusively) applied to evade responsibility and bypasses rights reserved to the *people* under the Constitution, explicitly or otherwise, in any case. As in the present example. This is the first time I've seen access to Federal ju

Back when the Feds were twisting everyone's arms to raise the drinking age to 21 Lousiana refused. We had a damn good reason; our state constitution forbids it, very directly saying that at 18 a person has "all the rights and privileges" of adulthood. (It's from the Napoleonic Code, and survived the big overhaul of 1974). So the lege started by floating a constitutional amendment, which fell flat with the voters. So then they passed the law anyway, and the state supreme court struck it down. So then, with weeks left on the deadline they passed the exact same law again and this time the state supreme court did a back flip and a twist and said that the constitution doesn't really say what it says and upheld the law. And that is how Louisiana became the very last state where an 18 year old can't buy a beer.

It will go down the same way with Real ID, just watch. It might be the Mormons or some blue state that stands up but they'll be told fine, pay for your own highways (though we'll still take your tax money) and good luck to any of your citizens who want to fly. And conversations will be had behind closed doors about the way things have to be and it will be done.

Look at your proportion of tax dollars paid to the feds vs your state. That's the same amount of control your state has over it's own "state" law. When a stae lowers it's income tax or property tax to attract residents, it loses some autonomy. Imagine what a diverse country we would live in if States had equal power and money to the Fed.

The states can tell the Feds that they will collect all taxes themselves and then go slow on handing it over to the Feds - Two years later: Yeah, yeah, cool down, the cheque is in the mail...That is what Alberta threatened to do a few years ago during a Federal spat and the Canadian government backtracked very quickly. Of course it helps that Alberta is just about the only province that actually pays anything.

Another Alberta trick is to threaten to replace the RCMP with a provincial police force, which wil

Another Alberta trick is to threaten to replace the RCMP with a provincial police force, which will throw thousands of Mounties out of work. Any state with a semi-intelligent governor can do things like this to force the Fed's hand. The Washington burocrats only have as much power as the states allow them to have.

Uh, no. You might have heard of this little thing called the Civil War, wherein it was determined, after a few million casualties, that Washington has more power than the states would like it to

States must submit a proposal for how they'll adopt the system by early October of this year. If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes.

I hope that enough states refuse to participate that it makes the federal legislature repeal the law. Of course, congress will likely do as they've always done and threaten to pull federal highway funding or education funding until the states in question comply.

Well, the good side of this is that airports, Federal courthouses, and other Federal buildings, are no longer going to be cleaned by (mostly Mexican) illegals. The bad side is, all the Federal buildings in Los Angeles, and LAX, are going to stay dirty.

It is relevant. The government is trying to sell this ID idea using the good old and worn out excuse of "curbing terrorism", but indeed, all the "allegedly" 9/11 terrorists had valid IDs. Despite of the fact of National IDs working in a lot of places (Europe and Brasil, from the top of my head), it doesn't really fits in the U.S. concepts of freedom.

Look at recent history in the past 50 years, in particular World War II identity cards [objectlessons.org] During World War II the government kept a central register of everyone in Britain. Names, date of birth and address were listed in this national register. It held the information needed for issuing national identity cards and food and clothing ration books, and for identifying children eligible for evacuation and adults eligible for call-up into the armed forces....The police, army and Home Guard checked identity cards fo

Except, again, the 9/11 terrorists had VALID, LEGAL IDs; they weren't fraudulent, they didn't lie about who they were. The 9/11 terrorists were here on perfectly valid visas, and all their IDs were obtained through perfectly legal means; which means, even if the "Real ID" system flies, it still won't stop terrorists from getting a valid ID. Somehow people have gotten it into their head that the 9/11 terrorists did things illegally before they attacked us, but this simply isn't the case; the 9/11 terrorists were normal, law-abiding individuals until their actions on 9/11.

This is absolutely true and D.C. is trying to get the rest of the people to become sheep and give up their rights. If no new information is being collected, no new requirements are being mandated, then exactly why is this necessary?

9-11 was cited as the reason for this in the FAQ (for those who RTFAQ) and it is complete and utter bull.

States that are trying to reject this (so far) include:
Maine (passed)
Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, Washington, California, and Texas)

This is EXACTLY a national ID card, and we already have the right to board aircraft. The problem is that we LET D.C. regulate states! Mod parent up - this is "national security" at its worst.

I mean, it's true : those terrorist had valid non-counterfeit IDs, linking them to the identities they used in the states and with which they didn't have any problem. Serious terrorist are supposed to keep low profile until last moment and ID linking to central database will be no help having a centralized national database won't bring any new information. (Except if "Al Qaida" provides a database of all identity of their terrorist. But as Al Qaida is more a "franchise" used by small groups [and used by the media to scare people] rather than a real well organised corporation, that not possible even in theory...)

Politicians should stop pretending that the ID is some magical problem that'll definitely fix the terrorism problem for sure. Here in Europe, almost every country has ID, but *that* isn't what will stop some of them of being targeted by attacks.

An ID card is just a convenient and standardized way for quickly showing who you are, for all those moments where you need it (before entering in nightclubs. while buying alcohol, when going to the administration, to prove you are the owner when using credit card). And that is the only thing politician should ever pretend. All the rest are lies. An ID card will never show what people *intend to do* and will never ever stop terrorists.

I mean, it's true : those terrorist had valid non-counterfeit IDs, linking them to the identities they used in the states and with which they didn't have any problem.

They also had multiple "valid" drivers licenses, and expired visas. On top of that, the initial visas some of them were issued were invalid, in that they were issued under the table, by a relative who worked in the issuing office.

All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers had valid photo ID and a valid boarding pass.

I know we all like to think the government is pure stupid with a touch of evil, or vice versa, but DHS has actually done better than you give them credit this time.

Many of the terrorists had IDs obtained either by bribing DMV officials or by using forged "primary" ID documents. If you read the proposed DHS rules, you'll see that they contain measures to require additional security checks for DMV employees, and measures to improve ver

What, exactly, is this supposed to do to "fight terror"? The only thing I'm terrified of is how easy it would be for an invasive, looming government with no regard for privacy and individual rights -- such as the one we have now -- to abuse this. "The terrorists" aren't getting ID cards. The law-abiding citizens are. And the citizens are the ones who will pay the consequences.

"The terrorists" aren't getting ID cards. The law-abiding citizens are. And the citizens are the ones who will pay the consequences.

Actually, most terrorists in the US have had authentic identification issued by the US government (or accepted by it).

The real terrorists will have no problem complying with this law.

Not only that, but it will be run by people. And people can be corrupted. A single ID card that is accepted as valid anywhere in the US becomes very valuable. So some low grade government paper pusher decides that he can make a bit of money on the side by approving fake requests. So the illegals in Texas are getting ID cards issued by a corrupt guy in New York.

Yeah, if you wanted to help crime NATIONWIDE, you really couldn't come up with a better plan than this.

You're right about any potential terrorist getting IDs themselves, 9/11 being obvious evidence to that fact. But the whole "single ID card" as asking for a huge exploit is silly. All states already honor all other states driver's licenses. I'm living in CA right now, with a NH license, for instance, and I'm treated exactly the same in all instances as someone with a CA license. As security is only as strong as its weakest link, a National ID would be (maybe will be) much harder to exploit. This is because the situation as it is now is that the weakest ID is all you need to exploit to get full privileges. We've already seen this with the 9/11 guys getting Virgina IDs. They did that for a reason.

With a national ID, ideally it would have the resources behind it to be stronger than any single state ID. However, any fraud protection is useless when you can just pay off a DMV employee, again as some of the hijackers did. The problem with national ID is not that it's in any way worse at IDing people. It's not. The problem is that is does nothing to deter or hinder terrorists, and that trying to know who everyone is at all times (and where they are if you are checked frequently enough) is extremely unamerican. It's a papers-please society, and its very bad. But it _is_ efficient, and that's unfortunately not an argument against it.

Downsize DC [downsizedc.org] has an ongoing campaign to repeal the REAL ID Act. Go visit their site then send your Senators and Representative a message. It only takes a couple of minutes. Let your idiot representative know that you're watching and you'll hold them accountable for their actions. It doesn't take long. Just go do it.

I was a registered Libertarian when I lived in Arizona, but thanks to Oklahoma's most restrictive ballot access requirements in the nation [oklp.org] I can't be registered as a Libertarian and there was one (count 'em. One) Independent candidate on my November 2006 ballot. Uggh.
So, I try to do both. I support the Libertarian Party [lp.org] and Downsize DC [downsizedc.org].
In many ways, Downsize DC has the potential to be more influential than the Libertarian Party in the near future. Downsize DC attempts to focus on "transpartisan" is

Done. The only mention I found of the police had something to do with roadblocks. I did find this, however:

Federal, state and local governments have created inefficient service monopolies throughout the economy. From the US Postal Service to municipal garbage collection and water works, government is forcing citizens to use monopoly services. These are services that the private sector is already capable of providing in a manner that gives the public better service at a competitive price.

(This seems like a good time to plug one of my favorite The Onion articles [theonion.com] of all time.)

A libertarian calling the fire department because he has no alternative. Is that supposed to be some sort of irony? It's not. First, he had no option to hire a private fire fighting service, and second, his taxes (unwilling though they might have been) paid for the public fire service already. Why would anyone expect him to pay twice? Or not call on principle? I say he was a little nutty to delay calling, but it's hardly an abandonment of his ideals to finally call.
It might interest you to know that there

Man, you people are just great. You want irony? How about the high-strung, douchebag libertarian who writes a 220 (I counted) word rebuttal to a 67-word fake newsbrief in a joke newspaper. God... that works on so many levels. Are any editors of the Onion reading this? Shit just writes itself.

From the article:which means that businesses like bars and banks that require ID would be capable of scanning and recording customers' home addresses.

Because reading it off the front isn't good enough? Why would they need to scan my address unless they wanted to send me junk mail or make a database of my drinking habits? This is security theater at best.

The key is the address on the front is printed and can be faked easily. The encrypted bar code on the back is much, much harder. So you can fake the front and copy a seemingly valid bar code from some other license. Obviously, when the bar code and front of the license aren't the same you have fake.

Why doesn't the federal government simply require its existing Federal ID for anyone who boards a plane? It's called a passport, and it's already (presumably) secure, or can easily be legislated as such. People who don't take airline flights needn't bother to get one, and no additional (read: expensive) requirements need to be imposed on the states.
The fact that this isn't being considered (or even discussed) tends to corroborate the real purpose of the REAL ID Act: a complete database of everyone, forever. Your papers, please.

This smells like zero-to-lawsuit in less than.1 second. It would mean that residents of the states that don't adapt DHS' guidelines would be discriminated against in Fed Gov employment as well as interstate travel. First of these is probably unconstitutional and the second of these is definately unconstitutional.

Shouldn't the states have control of the airports within them? If that were the case then you could fly to any other state that had rejected the Real ID as well.

I'd be curious to know exactly what law gives the federal government control over who can fly, instead of the airlines or the airport. If there is such a law, is it constitutional? Interstate commerce is the only federal juristiction I can think of that's close - but that doesn't apply to civilian passengers with nothing to sell...

What law? How about being the insurer of last resort?You see, if there is a "security failure" the airline does not have to solve the problem. The federal government almost certainly has to clean up the mess. The airlines have pretty much disclaimed responsibility and washed their hands of it. So, it clearly is the responsibility of the federal government.

The other alternative would be for the airlines to be responsible for security and any lapses. The airlines pretty much collapsed after 9/11 and most

I read one of the other articles about it here on/. a while back, when it was in the "idea" stage. Now it's all but basically implemented? I got a few..questions here so mod me down if you wish cause, I gotta ask;

So, we have until 2013 to become registered and with card right, what if we don't register? Are we just not admitted into federal buildings and airplanes as the article says? Or can businesses start not allowing customers entrance to their places without a card? Will businesses be able to shut

Since/. readers have a tendency to start screaming about national ID cards and identity databases without (apparently) actually reading the documents in question, I will provide the relevant quotes for you.

"In the proposed rule, DHS is proposing to limit the official purposes of a REAL ID license to those listed by Congress in the law: accessing a Federal facility; boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft; and entering nuclear power plants."

"Is this a National ID card? No. The proposed regulations establish common standards for States to issue licenses. The Federal Government is not issuing the licenses, is not collecting information about license holders, and is not requiring States to transmit license holder information to the Federal Government that the Government does not already have (such as a Social Security Number)."

"Will a national database be created that stores information about every applicant? No. The REAL ID Act and these regulations do not establish a national database of driver information. States will continue to collect and store information about applicants as they do today. The NPRM does not propose to change this practice and would not give the Federal government any greater access to this information."

"DHS is proposing minimum standards that will appear on the face of the card. The proposed regulation would require each of the following on the face of REAL IDs; space available for 39 characters for full legal name; address of principal residence; digital photograph; gender; date of birth; signature, document number; and machine readable technology."

"What is the Machine Readable Technology specified in the NPRM? The regulations propose the use of the 2-D barcode already used by 46 jurisdictions (45 States and the District of Columbia). DHS leans towards encrypting the data on the barcode as a privacy protection and requests comments on how to proceed given operational considerations."

So, let's see. What we're *actually* looking at is federal standards on what information needs to be displayed on state ID cards, and how identity needs to be proved prior to the issuance of a state ID card.

Gee, that's actually a lot less threatening then all the comments are making it sound. Hmm...

Take a good hard look at what your SSN is _supposed_ to be for. Now look at what all it gets used in.

Also, bear in mind that the RealID card is already being played up to have big restrictions to what people can do that the SSN never did. Extrapolate from there, and MAYBE you'll see why people are worried. Or you can continue to wear your blinders and take what the government says at face value.

I'm being totally serious here. Please don't flame. I just would like someone to carefully explain why a National ID is bad. We already have State IDs (Driver's Licenses) which are are required for virtually everything. We also have Passports, which some may argue are optional, but they are certainly not optional if you want to leave the country. We also have Social Security numbers and cards which you have to present if you want to get a job anywhere. The SSNs are presumably primary keys to a big database

Moding this post flamebait is a perfect example of the misuse of the moderation system. As I understand it, moderation is not there simply so you can push your own politial point of view. The moderation itself is a flame. Hopefully others will mod it back up--NOT for its point of view, but because of the injustice. Or perhaps meta-moderation will ctach it. It's really unfortunate slashdot has become so politically correct that you can't have a reasonable discussion with encountering this nonsense. Just for

A lot of us view this as bad simply because it gives the federal government more power, and any time the feds get more power it means that either the states or the people are losing it. Sometimes both. The 10th ammendment to the US constitution is getting walked on, at any rate.Others view that it is a bad thing because it offers a central point of failure. Some will argue this, stating that it has specific uses. Practically, though, that argument is pretty lousy. The same thing could be said about SSN's, b

If they don't, come May of next year their residents will see their licenses unable to gain them access to federal buildings and airplanes.

I hope my state doesn't comply. It will be interesting to see how the feds are planning to staff their buildings with 100% out-of-state employees. I can see it now: "Sorry, Judge! Even though you were elected to serve in California, you can't enter the building...because your id is from California."

If even 2 or 3 states with lots of air travelers opt out, er, "just say no," the feds will be forced to adopt another way for these people to board airplanes or the airline industry will have a fit. If it's inconvenient or expensive expect a hew and cry from the voters.

The "ultimate" backup plan for the feds is to require passports for internal travel. Insert In Soviet Russia joke here.

The feds requiring consistent documentation standards is not THE issue, but they should let the states work it out.
THE issue is the sharing of data. The feds want to share the DL data with Canada and Mexico. Mexico?!?! Mexican law enforcement is owned by drug dealers for Christ's sake! Who's next... Venezuela or Columbia?

"DHS is proposing to limit the official purposes of a REAL ID license to those listed by Congress in the law: accessing a Federal facility; boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft; and entering nuclear power plants. DHS may consider expanding these official purposes through future rulemakings....."

Yeah. That's a loophole on a par with those job descriptions that end with the phrase "and such other duties as may be required..."

Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

just go and make sure you have yours...After you have yours then you can freely debate

Debate within compliance is just lip service, isn't it? We can debate until we're blue in the face but it won't make a bit of difference in terms of profit as the money has already been allocated and spent.

Compliance before argument? What country are you from, 'cause it sure ain't the U.S.? Did the Sons of Liberty comply with the British on the Tea Tax? No, they threw that fucking tea into the ocean. Did Pennsylvania farmers comply with the excise tax in 1794? No, they took up arms and started the Whiskey Rebellion. Did the Native Americans comply with orders to move to reservations? No, they got some guns and started shooting white settlers and the Army. This country has a long history of rebellion r

Better yet, don't just not accept it, actively fight it. If you happen to be well-off enough to have a private jet or airplane, consider using it to transport people who don't go with the RealID scheme. You probably won't turn a profit, but at least you can genuinely do something until they bust you.

Bush aides charged with speaking to the public and the media are kept out of the loop on some of the most important issues. And bad news is dumped before the weekend for the sole purpose of burying it.

With a candor that is frowned upon at the White House, Martin explained the use of late-Friday statements. "Fewer people pay attention to it late on Friday," she said. "Fewer people pay attention when it's reported on Sa

it happens from time to time but slashdot has pretty good system to keep the mods honest (unlike digg or some other such nonsense sites). The karma system hands out mod points to those with good karma more often than those without, as well as the meta moderating which (i think) performfs a similar function. wrongs tend to get righted quickly, and overall it's probably one of the better systems anyone could come up with imho.

Not everyone has a driving license. Even a SSN is not the same as an id card. Everyone will have an id card - and you will carry it at all times and be expected to produce it before entering any building or using any transport - at least I will be voting for you to do these things as soon as I know that it can be done.Just think! anybody caught without a card must be a terrorist or at least a criminal of some kind and we can put them straight into concentration camps! brilliant! Illegal immigrants and minor

It's obvious that Citibank, BofA, Visa, etc. aren't ever going to do anything to stop identity theft, maybe it's time the government starts doing something about it. If ReadID helps, it would be a big step forward on that front. I don't care if it has to be sold to the public using terrorism, because it's still an improvement over what we have today.

I rarely have to show my ID when I'm using a credit card physically, and absolutely never has a website required a copy or scan of my ID. It's silly, it does

The problem is the airlines have proven they aren't going to do the job. Not that TSA is currently doing a lot better, by any means, but the airlines were worse.

Also, unless we hold the airlines responsible for security failures, giving them the job is pointless. Having the same organzation responsible for both security and security failures is the only way it should work.

Also, unless we hold the airlines responsible for security failures, giving them the job is pointless. Having the same organzation responsible for both security and security failures is the only way it should work.

Isn't that the whole point of making the airlines responsible for security?
I mean, whose expensive planes are being targeted? Who is going to be on the receiving end of all the wrongful death lawsuits? The airlines.
The TSA is a great example of making noone responsible. Ever try to sue the